To invoke theory for a moment; wars are fundamentally contests of national willpower backed by capability, directed by strategy. Achieving victory requires the victor to overcome the enemy’s resistance. The side that manages the combination of resources & willpower while imposing its political objectives usually wins.

While there is no single factor, victory is the outcome of multiple interlocking advantages that compound over time.

History shows no magic bullet; even overwhelming superiority in one area can be negated by failure in others (think Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, even Korea). All to say, the war with Iran does not equate to WWII conditions.

What determines victory?

1. Political will and coherence among the political machinery of a nation. The side that can sustain higher costs longer, maintain domestic support, and clearly define winnable goals usually prevails. You can win militarily and still lose the war. The side whose political system better handles the stress of prolonged conflict holds the edge.

2. Economic and logistical power or the ability to sustain a prolonged war. There is a saying in warfare, “amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics.” Industrial capacity, supply chains, finance, and the ability to replace losses decide long wars. History teaches many examples where this was simply not the case. Especially in wars of attrition (ie., Vietnam).

3. Strategy and operational art or better stated, good strategy multiplies force; bad strategy wastes it. Strategies such as maneuver warfare used by the Germans in WWII (see above), attrition strategies that favor your strengths (Russians fighting Napoleon & Hitler along their Eastern Front), or exhaustion strategies (the use of Fabian tactics, simply wearing your opponent down). A boxing fan would know this as the rope-a-dope strategy applied by heavy weight boxing champion, Muhammad Ali. Learning faster than the enemy, adapting to clear weaknesses, and using good intelligence wisely, all matter. History is replete with many “genius” generals who lost because their strategy didn’t match the resources or the politics along with their failure to adapt nor recognize their need to adapt.

4. Technology and force quality where technology advantages are real but transient and rarely decisive alone (stealth drones, aircraft carriers, hypersonic weapons, suicide bombers, AI, electronic warfare, cyber, robotics, targeting from space, etc) are all being shaped or are reshaping modern warfare at speed. Victory can be achieved by the adapter of risk and new technology matched by courage in the political halls as well as on the battlefield. Superior training, sound but flexible doctrine, and human capital often matter more than raw equipment, essentially the side that integrates new technology faster wins (ie., Houthi rebels using ballistic missiles and drones to deny passage thru the Red Sea).

5. Manpower, morale, and alliances matter when quality is comparable. High morale (belief you’re fighting for something real) can sustain casualties. So far we’ve been blessed that our casualty figures are low (one casualty is hard but the human cost of war is real). Coalitions bring resources and legitimacy but add friction. Geography clearly favors the defender Iran in this case. And our need to project power is necessary but super expensive.

So what? What type of war is this?

Is it a short war, is it another long war, is it an asymmetric war?

Bottom line: There is no romantic answer for this war. War is a failure of diplomacy. War is ugly. War is costly. Wars are usually won by the side better at converting resources into sustained, coherent violence in service of achievable goals. The loser is often the one that miscalculates the other’s resolve or their own vulnerabilities. I pray we didn’t do that here. This war is a test of endurance as much as tactics. Pray America & Americans can endure.